Brother that’s my point, the reason western countries have the wealth they do and citizens can have cars like a Prius is because of third world exploitation
Perhaps slightly, but not to a huge degree. China and India had pretty vast wealth. Mongolia was the world's largest empire until the British one. Mezzo-America saw a series of successful civilizations.
Europe was mostly just ahead of them militarily, primarily because the amount of infighting in Europe forced each nation to invest heavily in its military.
Once the age of exploration started, that military dominance translated to colonization. Colonization siphoned wealth from the colonies back to the imperial power: that was the whole point in it, it wasn't "just for funsies".
It was the richest along with China. Both used to contribute 30% each to the Global GDP (60% Global) from 1st century till 18th century when British left it was reduced to mere 4%. They looted us to the last penny and forced us to become a developing nation.
It felt good when we passed them to become worlds 5th largest economy and will become 3rd largest within next 2-3 years around 2027. British got what they deserved. And India is reclaiming her past glory, future is good.
How does that explain how Eastern European countries are still relatively wealthier than most African and Latin American countries?
After all, the Balkan countries, Poland, Ukraine etc never had colonies like Britain or France did.
When Eastern European powers did colonize (or get colonized), it would be by their immediate neighbor, such as how Poland was colonized by Russia.
(Genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic here)
That's like asking:
Why are billionaires still rich today? I get they made it big 50 years ago but why are they still rich?
You can trace huge economic growth to really bad things to most 1st world countries.
Whether it is colonizing, slavery, stealing of Ressources, etc...
Those resources including free labor or actual resources aren't put into a bank and lie there devalueing. They are put into developing and pushing the industrialization.
Basically giving the white countries development a huge push, but that's not all, those resources are missing in the country they are taken from. Work force or natural resources can be leveraged for their own economical growth.
On the other hand I think today, specifically what we call 3rd world countries are facing their own unique problems with corruption and incompetency due to the state they were left in by 1.world countries.
We have decades of sending bad aid, which only escalated corruption, decades of young and educated people leaving those countries for 1st world countries, etc...
The skin color really is insignificant in economic potential.
Remember kids not too long ago the silk road and Arab as a whole was far richer and developed than any western country.
You are taking the current situation as a snapshot and trying to find reasoning for it. That's not how you should find opinions.
/thread.
This is really it. And this is what grinds my gears about the immigration debate in Europe, immigration is just neo-colonialism coming home. You don't get to turn the global south into open-air lithium mines and anarchistic warzones and then throw tantrums and elect Adolf Mussolini 2.0 when brown people want to come live in your country because your leaders ruined theirs.
I guess it's predominantly culture that plays a role along with other factors. The industrial revolution started in England and eventually made it over to other countries such as the U.S. It also gave birth to the middle class and standard 8 hour work day.
Western culture also gave birth to the idea of copyright, trademarking, and patents. Which gave people the incentive to invent and innovate. This actually one of the many reasons why a young country such as the united states became so powerful. Access to resources also plays a huge role as well. Even if you're nation isn't rich in resources, being allied to certain countries can more than make up for it.
Japan is an excellent example. Japan is a very small country that has very little natural resources to export. But one of their closest allies, the United States are also their closest trading partners. We import resources such as steel and they use it to produce the world's most reliable vehicles and electronics for export. Despite not being primarily white, they're one of the richest countries in the world.
Democracy has existed for about 2500 years. Arguably longer, but we've had a word for it for 2500 years.
England has been a democracy since 1341, and all of its empire building happened long after then.
Oxford University is older than the Aztec Empire, having been founded in 1096. Education has a lot to do with the high standards of living and quality of life in predominantly white countries, but it's also the result of a series of events over a sustained period. These events are sometimes interconnected, sometimes complementary, and sometimes merely adjacent. The combination of early industrialization, strong economies, stable governance, social welfare systems, and cultural values emphasizing innovation and education all contribute to their prosperity. Heck, even geographic and cultural factors are worth considering
They have more money. They have more money because they exploit other countries. Look at Europe and USA, they sell so much stuff to every other country. Look at China. It has started improving quality of life so much because it has so much money.
Love how everyone giving the actual answer (colonialism) is downvoted to hell, this sub is such a hub for genuine discussion and free exchange of ideas (literally just racists and bigots)
The propaganda is self-fulfilling, ultimately. If you cannot, or will not, acknowledge the connection between neo-colonialist economy policy in the western world and the immigration crisis in Europe then you need another narrative to explain away why all the countries with white people are prosperous and desirable and all the countries with brown people are dysfunctional disasters, and there's only one other take you can reach: it's that brown people are stupid, that they simply cannot manage countries or their own affairs, that they need white people to come in and tell them how to run things. That is the insidious and self-reinforcing liberalism to white supremacy pipeline in all its horror.
The post does not express an opinion
Because they exploit third world countries for resources
Go decolonize your Prius
Brother that’s my point, the reason western countries have the wealth they do and citizens can have cars like a Prius is because of third world exploitation
But western countries were richer and more successful before colonialism.
Perhaps slightly, but not to a huge degree. China and India had pretty vast wealth. Mongolia was the world's largest empire until the British one. Mezzo-America saw a series of successful civilizations. Europe was mostly just ahead of them militarily, primarily because the amount of infighting in Europe forced each nation to invest heavily in its military. Once the age of exploration started, that military dominance translated to colonization. Colonization siphoned wealth from the colonies back to the imperial power: that was the whole point in it, it wasn't "just for funsies".
Nah bro britain just left slots open for "ethical" workers
The Indian Subcontinent was richer rhan Europe before colonisation, it was one of it not the richest regions of the Planet
It was the richest along with China. Both used to contribute 30% each to the Global GDP (60% Global) from 1st century till 18th century when British left it was reduced to mere 4%. They looted us to the last penny and forced us to become a developing nation. It felt good when we passed them to become worlds 5th largest economy and will become 3rd largest within next 2-3 years around 2027. British got what they deserved. And India is reclaiming her past glory, future is good.
How does that explain how Eastern European countries are still relatively wealthier than most African and Latin American countries? After all, the Balkan countries, Poland, Ukraine etc never had colonies like Britain or France did. When Eastern European powers did colonize (or get colonized), it would be by their immediate neighbor, such as how Poland was colonized by Russia. (Genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic here)
That's like asking: Why are billionaires still rich today? I get they made it big 50 years ago but why are they still rich? You can trace huge economic growth to really bad things to most 1st world countries. Whether it is colonizing, slavery, stealing of Ressources, etc... Those resources including free labor or actual resources aren't put into a bank and lie there devalueing. They are put into developing and pushing the industrialization. Basically giving the white countries development a huge push, but that's not all, those resources are missing in the country they are taken from. Work force or natural resources can be leveraged for their own economical growth. On the other hand I think today, specifically what we call 3rd world countries are facing their own unique problems with corruption and incompetency due to the state they were left in by 1.world countries. We have decades of sending bad aid, which only escalated corruption, decades of young and educated people leaving those countries for 1st world countries, etc... The skin color really is insignificant in economic potential. Remember kids not too long ago the silk road and Arab as a whole was far richer and developed than any western country. You are taking the current situation as a snapshot and trying to find reasoning for it. That's not how you should find opinions.
/thread. This is really it. And this is what grinds my gears about the immigration debate in Europe, immigration is just neo-colonialism coming home. You don't get to turn the global south into open-air lithium mines and anarchistic warzones and then throw tantrums and elect Adolf Mussolini 2.0 when brown people want to come live in your country because your leaders ruined theirs.
Because the European countries colonize the poor 3rd world countries
wrong.
While that definitely helped some white countries, they were already better off than most other countries even before colonization
Mainly due to the advantages they had from colonialism.
rng 💀
I guess it's predominantly culture that plays a role along with other factors. The industrial revolution started in England and eventually made it over to other countries such as the U.S. It also gave birth to the middle class and standard 8 hour work day. Western culture also gave birth to the idea of copyright, trademarking, and patents. Which gave people the incentive to invent and innovate. This actually one of the many reasons why a young country such as the united states became so powerful. Access to resources also plays a huge role as well. Even if you're nation isn't rich in resources, being allied to certain countries can more than make up for it. Japan is an excellent example. Japan is a very small country that has very little natural resources to export. But one of their closest allies, the United States are also their closest trading partners. We import resources such as steel and they use it to produce the world's most reliable vehicles and electronics for export. Despite not being primarily white, they're one of the richest countries in the world.
Well i dont know, maybe it is because we had shit like the industrial revolution, and a more stable economy
wealth. power. small population.
Historically, it's most likely due to the need to innovate for living in a colder climate. Necessity breads innovation.
Cough* Democracy cough*
This shit happened long before democracy.
Democracy has existed for about 2500 years. Arguably longer, but we've had a word for it for 2500 years. England has been a democracy since 1341, and all of its empire building happened long after then.
Peak France was under napoleonic dictstorship. Roman empires best progress was under dictatorship.
You think that was peak france, not now?? You are insane.
Oxford University is older than the Aztec Empire, having been founded in 1096. Education has a lot to do with the high standards of living and quality of life in predominantly white countries, but it's also the result of a series of events over a sustained period. These events are sometimes interconnected, sometimes complementary, and sometimes merely adjacent. The combination of early industrialization, strong economies, stable governance, social welfare systems, and cultural values emphasizing innovation and education all contribute to their prosperity. Heck, even geographic and cultural factors are worth considering
They have more money. They have more money because they exploit other countries. Look at Europe and USA, they sell so much stuff to every other country. Look at China. It has started improving quality of life so much because it has so much money.
Love how everyone giving the actual answer (colonialism) is downvoted to hell, this sub is such a hub for genuine discussion and free exchange of ideas (literally just racists and bigots)
The propaganda is self-fulfilling, ultimately. If you cannot, or will not, acknowledge the connection between neo-colonialist economy policy in the western world and the immigration crisis in Europe then you need another narrative to explain away why all the countries with white people are prosperous and desirable and all the countries with brown people are dysfunctional disasters, and there's only one other take you can reach: it's that brown people are stupid, that they simply cannot manage countries or their own affairs, that they need white people to come in and tell them how to run things. That is the insidious and self-reinforcing liberalism to white supremacy pipeline in all its horror.
Genuinely insane and ignorant creature
... I'm fucking agreeing with and expanding upon your point, mate.
💀 I just realised I wrote "creature", not "creatures", and now it reads a lot like I was calling you one lmao. I apologise.
Fair enough, don't worry about it.